Massachusetts has pledged to conserve 40% of its natural lands and waters by 2050. On Election Day, voters will decide whether to designate a portion of sales taxes to further this cause.
Question 6 would funnel revenue from the sales tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses into a “Nature for All Fund” to be used to support natural resource conservation efforts statewide. If it passes on Nov. 3, the initiative is expected to raise an estimated $100 million a year once fully in place, without implementing any new taxes for consumers or businesses.
The Nature for All Fund would receive 50% of state taxes collected from the sale of these outdoor items in the first year, and then 100% of the tax revenue in subsequent years. The policy excludes money taken from every dollar of sales taxes to fund the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
Environmental and conservation nonprofits across Hampshire and Franklin counties say the fund would greatly enhance their efforts to conserve natural lands and establish green spaces at a time when federal investment continues to dwindle.
“Generally speaking, this is definitely a time where conservation funding is limited or reduced,” said Diana Chaplin, communications director at the Greenfield-based Connecticut River Conservancy. “So any kind of support that could be provided for the states that can increase the funding availability will be really critical right now.”
However, some conservation advocates are reluctant to support the measure when it takes funding away from other public services.
“If you’re going to take money from sporting goods, then fund more girls sports in the schools [or] fund public education about nature,” said Janet Sinclair, co-founder of Save Massachusetts Forests, one of several organizations that opposes the measure. “There’s so many other things to fund that would actually be a public benefit.”
The ballot question is modeled after programs in 28 other states that have designated funding sources for conservation and recreation. Massachusetts would follow in the footsteps of Texas and Georgia by using sales tax from sporting goods.
If the question passes, a 15-member board consisting of five state officials and 10 citizens would oversee the fund and decide on specific conditions of eligibility. The umbrella of conservation projects is vast, ranging from new parks and conservation restrictions to stormwater management infrastructure and invasive species removal, Chaplin said.
The estimated $100 million that would be raised each year is based on the $2.496 billion Massachusetts consumers spent on sporting goods in 2022. The revenue currently goes into the state’s general fund for the Legislature to allocate in the yearly budget.
A statewide coalition of more than 100 environmental and conservation organizations has backed the question, including many in the Pioneer Valley. In addition to the Connecticut River Conservancy, others include the Kestrel Land Trust, Mount Grace Land Trust, Mass Audubon, Hilltown Land Trust, Franklin Land Trust and the Deerfield River Watershed Association.
Nonprofits, businesses and municipalities currently compete for conservation and recreation funds, said Kristin DeBoer, executive director of Kestrel Land Trust, based in Amherst. While land trusts are protecting land within current budgets, DeBoer said the Nature for All Fund would enable Kestrel and other organizations to expedite conservation around the state.
There is no organized effort opposing Question 6, but the state’s official ballot question booklet, mailed to voters, includes counterarguments presented in the Legislature’s Majority Report. Because the measure would redirect existing revenue that now supports other programs, the argument states, moving that money could hurt state programs that rely on it.
Sinclair agrees with the report, and she is not alone. The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Massachusetts Republicans, RESTORE: The North Woods and the Sierra Club Massachusetts Chapter’s Forest Protection Team all publicly oppose the question.
Supporters of Question 6, including Jocelyn Forbush, chief conservation officer at Mass Audubon, said the funding represents 0.16% of the $63.4 billion state budget in the current fiscal year. This minuscule percentage of the total pot quadruples state-allocated conservation funding, which is earmarked at $25 million this fiscal year, she said.
“We’ve seen the Massachusetts budget grow incrementally over the last decade,” she continued. “The percentage of that budget for nature has declined in that period.”
Yet some conservationists opposed to the measure worry this slice will go toward private land conservation and remove public opinion from land management. Sinclair stresses that public money should go toward the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation or the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to purchase public land.
“I would rather those agencies be the acquirers of land because the public has input on how those lands are used and managed,” she said.
Lynne Man, co-leader of the Massachusetts Sierra Club’s Forest Protection Team, wrote in a letter to Sierra Club leadership that the state conservation benchmark does not require land be kept “wild,” and many private conservation nonprofits log their land to some extent.
“Purchasing private land for conservation is not a bad thing, but in this context it removes the incentive to increase public land protection,” Man wrote. “Public land is often better suited because it is already part of a larger, contiguous landscape.”
The Vote Yes for Water and Nature group has received more than $4.3 million in contributions since last year in support of Question 6, according to the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Many of those donors are nonprofit conservation organizations, watershed associations and land trustees that Sinclair said directly benefit from the ballot question.
State funds for conservation and recreation are supplemented by local options, such as the Community Preservation Act surtax and federal funding. In recent years, the latter has shifted away from spending money on natural resource preservation and green space development.
According to the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation advocacy group, the White House’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget would cut $342.4 million from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $528 million from the U.S. Geological Survey and $272.5 million from the Bureau of Land Management.
The decreased federal investment coincides with a major period of land transfer. Mount Grace Land Trust Executive Director Emma Ellsworth said many plots of family forest and farmland are coming on the market or moving to the next generation. Purchasing conservations on this land now prevents parcellation of natural habitat.
“In the North Quabbin region where Mount Grace functions, people’s land is oftentimes their primary and only asset,” Ellsworth said. “It’s not something their families can afford to donate. They need to be compensated.”
In the Pioneer Valley, nature remains a key economic driver. The Quabbin Reservoir brought $40 million into the region from tourism and natural recreation, Ellsworth said.
Question 6, if adopted, would help the state reach the conservation goals that call for conservation of 30% of state natural lands and waters by 2030, a figure that would grow to 40% by 2050. As of 2025, the state had conserved 28% of its natural lands, or 1.4 million acres, the Healey administration said.
Unlike policy-based ballot questions, voter approval does not automatically transfer a portion of sales tax to a new account. The power to allocate funding lies exclusively with the Legislature. However, Forbush said constituents show Massachusetts’ administration and elected officials their support for conservation and recreation through their vote.
“If local people are looking for a place to conserve the places they love in the valley, all of those places are what the ballot initiative will help,” DeBoer said. “Think locally, act locally.”
